apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de>
Subject Re: Version of autoconf for releases?
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:09:39 GMT
On 07.02.2012 15:42, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2012, at 3:45 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> I agree 100%.   And hopefully we also agree that the order should be
>>
>> 1. make the fixes to our code
>> 2. start using autoconf v2.68
>>
>> Also, that's not a showstopper for a release, so an RM should use the
>> known-compatible version of autoconf for new releases until any
>> glitches are resolved.
>
> Warnings are exactly that - warnings. If all we're doing is using a version of autoconf
that complains less, but otherwise does nothing different to the current version, we're not
achieving anything by doing that.
>
> Has anyone gone through the warnings to determine if the warnings should cause concern?

As far as I understood Bojan this is no longer an issue. If he tries to 
prepare 1.4.x head for release there are no warnings and that is the 
code we are going to release.

In case we wonder why there are no warnings for head but there are 
warnings for 1.4.5: see CHANGES:

*) Silence autoconf 2.68 warnings. [Rainer Jung]

in the 1.4.6 block.

The change was 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1125474, svn log was

Silence autoconf 2.68 warnings.

Add AC_LANG_SOURCE to AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
in apr_common.m4.

Backport of r1125472 from trunk
resp. r1125473 from 1.5.x.


There is no analogous change for apr-util, but as far as I remember 
those warnings did not exist for apr-util. Bojan please correct me if 
your experience is different.

Regards and happy RMing

Rainer

Mime
View raw message